Passage: “The Lovely Stones,” by Christopher Hitchens
In the modern world, less powerful countries continue to live with scars of the wounds inflicted upon them in centuries past. In “The Lovely Stones,” Christopher Hitchens addresses this issue in the sphere of the arts by arguing that the original Parthenon sculptures should be returned to Greece. To do so, he uses logic, vivid language, and counterargument.
An important component of Hitchens’ argument is his appeal to the illogical decision to split up the story told by the sculptures. The marbles contain a series of metopes “depicting a succession of mythical and historical battles.” He follows the comment about “succession” by saying that the frieze was “quite clearly carved as a continuous narrative.” By making these two connections to story, he makes the audience expect that the story should exist in complete form. He then shocks his readers by saying that “half the cast of the tale is still in … London.” Readers will be upset that a great and powerful mythological story can only be seen in full by taking a journey of several hours between acts. Having established this point, Hitchens hammers it home by using an analogy: if the Mona Lisa had been split in half, we would demand that the parts be put back together. By comparing the divided marbles to a division of one of the world’s most renowned paintings, Hitchens awakens a sense of outrage in his readers: such an abuse of artistic integrity, they would say, should not stand.
Hitchens furthers his argument by salting it with vivid and provocative language. The key is the contrast between the beauty of the sculptures and the apparently sordid actions of the British. The sculptures are part of “the most lavish and beautiful sculptural treasury in human history,” make by an “artistic genius” and featuring “intricate element[s]” and close attention to historical detail. This description of the marbles shows readers that, aesthetically, they reach the highest levels, and so they will want these marbles to be displayed in their full and complete beauty. Against the backdrop of this beauty, Hitchens depicts the taking of the marbles as barbaric. They were taken away, not by aficionados hoping to preserve culture, but by “a wrecking crew” that “sawed off” the marbles like 19th-century physicians sawing off bones. The result, according to Hitchens, is “grotesque.” This provocative description makes the taking of the sculptures seem bad, but in this case, the damage is reversible—“one desecration and dilapidation that can be partially undone”—by restoring the sculptures to their home in Greece. Hitchens’ readers, yearning to restore the beauty so savagely taken away, will ask the British government to overcome its backward, “constipated” clinging to the marbles so that the beauty that Hitchens has shown throughout the article can stand forth as if never assaulted. The vivid contrast of beautiful art and grotesque actions works to convince readers that making the sculpture aesthetically “right” will also make the world morally “right.”
To show readers that he understands the practical implications of returning the sculptures, Hitchens makes use of counterargument. First, he addresses the claim that Athens’s pollution will make the marbles worse off than they were in London: “the Greeks have been living up to their responsibilities” by using “careful cleaning” with “lasers” and “a climate-controlled interior.” These high-tech approaches to caring for ancient artifacts show readers that these cultural treasures will receive the treatment that they deserve, making their return to Greece even more desirable. Hitchens follows this claim by addressing the fear that moving the sculptures to Athens will “empty[] or weaken[]” the museum in London. No, claims Hitchens—moving the sculptures will make a new museum, thus adding to the total amount of culture available to public view. This counterargument shows the reader that though Hitchens can inveigh passionately against injustice, he can also respond calmly to the arguments of his opponents, making him seem balanced as a person and thus making his argument for returning the marbles balanced too. His argument thus engages not only the hearts of readers, but also their minds.
In his essay, Christopher Hitchens uses logic, vivid language, and counterargument to persuade readers that the original Parthenon sculptures should be returned to Greece. He offers readers new words on behalf of the ancient world.